6 ms·

>Way too many comments and articles that try and keep the fear training running full steam. Enragement is engagement, and how better to enrage people than scar

>Way too many comments and articles that try and keep the fear training running full steam. Enragement is engagement, and how better to enrage people than scaring everyone out of their wits and politicising everything as far as humanly possible? I'm certainly no COVID denier nor vaccine sceptic, though to me it's astonishing how little discussion has happened around the fact that everyone from some randomer's blog to major media outlets have every incentive towards alarmism and sensationalism and no incentive at all for moderation and sober analysis. If you're a media outlet of any description and you write articles / film videos using hard-hitting emotional language to make people as terrified as possible, they'll be doomscrolling through your content all day and seeing lots of ads in the process. Even if it turns out your content was complete bollocks, you still got the engagement and ad revenue and by the time you post a correction (if you even bother) the news cycle has moved on to the next Horrible Truth you Must Read All About Right Now Or Else Bad Things will Happen to You. If you instead write a calm, measured article that right off the bat admits the caveats with any scary claims then nobody will read it and your potential readers/cash cows will be off on your competitor's sites that are using sensationalist and alarmist language. The depressing thing is that even the average 'masks and distancing every winter forever' people and average 'restrictions are just a cover for politicians to consolidate their authoritarian power' people have far more in common with each-other than they do with say, Rupert Murdoch. So much completely artificial hatred has been generated and it has driven completely needless shards of anger and resentment between colleagues, between friends, and between families.

chimprich 5y ago
The evidence of the past year or two suggests otherwise. For the first few months of 2020, media outlets were constantly downplaying the threat of pandemic. They consistently under-reported the risk. "Should we be worried? No! The threat is remote!" What also sells papers (or attracts eyeballs) is giving people an impression of superiority: "look at all those ridiculous other people panicking!" There's also the generation of anger: "you're being lied to! It's all a hoax / other people are trying to manipulate you by making you scared!" Another angle is making people feel good: "everything is fine, don't worry about anything!"
- lb0 5y ago
  I agree, its strange the different bubbles we live in, but none of my news sources didn't have the "Omicron likely weaker" headline?!
  - johnchristopher 5y ago
    Mine had. Not less than 24hours before the story emerged. Which result in 2 things: loss of trust in public authorities public faces ("omicron is a christmas gift !") and loss of trust in the scientific public faces ("omicron may be milder").
- flavius29663 5y ago
  I think it's more of "all of the above". Anything and everything that creates engagement will be published and spread out.
- BoxOfRain 5y ago
  >For the first few months of 2020, media outlets were constantly downplaying the threat of pandemic. They consistently under-reported the risk. "Should we be worried? No! The threat is remote!" This hasn't been my experience, in fact the British government's SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) was advising the government to lean on the press in order to increase 'the perceived level of personal threat' early in the pandemic[1]. I really do think the use of behavioural psychology to encourage compliance with government policy is one of the lesser-discussed aspects of the pandemic that future historians will correctly give more importance to than we did at the time. In all honesty this isn't so much a criticism of how the British government acted during the pandemic but how it acts in general. This institutional bent towards the manipulative is partially what led us into the unmitigated disaster that is the War on Terror in my opinion, consent for which largely stemmed from a state of fear among the general public made worse by poor journalistic norms. >Another angle is making people feel good: "everything is fine, don't worry about anything!" I've not seen a single bit of serious journalism along those lines, it's either been 'COVID is going to kill us all and it's the plaguebearing hordes of the unvaccinated who are to blame' or 'The government is turning totalitarian and it's the fault of out-of-touch bureaucrats that need to be removed' (the article I linked is very much a member of that species). I've come across very little in the way of sober analysis, almost every piece of journalism I've come across on the topic carries some kind of moral judgement against $group in it. The point I'm making is that moral judgement sells and feels good to dole out to people you don't like, but it also robs us of a little humanity every time we do it. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/14/scientists-admit-totalitarian-use-fear-control-behaviour-covid/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/14/scientists-admit...
clairity 5y ago
it’s worth always keeping in mind that the only dichotomy that matters in political economies is that between the wealthy and powerful and everyone else, not left-right, black-white, east-west, socialist-capitalist, or anything else. it’s been this way for all of human history past and will likely be so for the rest of it too. that’s a sober position to take, not a cynical one, as some might argue. the more dynamic our political and economic engines are, the better for the general welfare (obviously at the extreme this breaks down, but we’re not in danger of that extreme any time soon, if ever). masks provide no added protection in most common situations where they’re used, but provide much political leverage, which is why they’re popular. same with (non-sterilizing) vaccine mandates and other arbitrary public restrictions. these are political wedges, not effective public health measures. if we were worried about public health, vaccination status wouldn’t be considered at all, only infection status. we’d also be policing private behavior (family/social gatherings) much more invasively, rather than public behavior (grocery stores and restaurants).
- lb0 5y ago
  Very confusing statements, any sources? To start with one, https://twitter.com/maxplanckpress/status/1466687935638654976 https://twitter.com/maxplanckpress/status/146668793563865497...
- pfisch 5y ago
  "the only dichotomy that matters in political economies is that between the wealthy and powerful and everyone else" I always think of this as putting on different pairs of glasses to see the world through different lenses. That is one lens. left-right is another lens. There is no "the only lens that matters". There are many lenses which have different degrees of predictive power depending on what you are observing. You don't use a microscope to look at the stars.
  - clairity 5y ago
    left-right is the worst of political dichotomies. it provides no purpose other than to arbitrarily divide the world into good vs. bad from the perspective of the viewer. that’s meant to solely benefit politicians, not provide any clarity, because it collapses the acceptable political narratives down into a palatably small set from which the politician can form a base. in short, it’s pure bullshit.
Centmo 5y ago
Fix the incentives, fix the world.

chimprich 5y ago

The evidence of the past year or two suggests otherwise. For the first few months of 2020, media outlets were constantly downplaying the threat of pandemic. They consistently under-reported the risk. "Should we be worried? No! The threat is remote!" What also sells papers (or attracts eyeballs) is giving people an impression of superiority: "look at all those ridiculous other people panicking!" There's also the generation of anger: "you're being lied to! It's all a hoax / other people are trying to manipulate you by making you scared!" Another angle is making people feel good: "everything is fine, don't worry about anything!"

lb0 5y ago
I agree, its strange the different bubbles we live in, but none of my news sources didn't have the "Omicron likely weaker" headline?!
- johnchristopher 5y ago
  Mine had. Not less than 24hours before the story emerged. Which result in 2 things: loss of trust in public authorities public faces ("omicron is a christmas gift !") and loss of trust in the scientific public faces ("omicron may be milder").
flavius29663 5y ago
I think it's more of "all of the above". Anything and everything that creates engagement will be published and spread out.
BoxOfRain 5y ago
>For the first few months of 2020, media outlets were constantly downplaying the threat of pandemic. They consistently under-reported the risk. "Should we be worried? No! The threat is remote!" This hasn't been my experience, in fact the British government's SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) was advising the government to lean on the press in order to increase 'the perceived level of personal threat' early in the pandemic[1]. I really do think the use of behavioural psychology to encourage compliance with government policy is one of the lesser-discussed aspects of the pandemic that future historians will correctly give more importance to than we did at the time. In all honesty this isn't so much a criticism of how the British government acted during the pandemic but how it acts in general. This institutional bent towards the manipulative is partially what led us into the unmitigated disaster that is the War on Terror in my opinion, consent for which largely stemmed from a state of fear among the general public made worse by poor journalistic norms. >Another angle is making people feel good: "everything is fine, don't worry about anything!" I've not seen a single bit of serious journalism along those lines, it's either been 'COVID is going to kill us all and it's the plaguebearing hordes of the unvaccinated who are to blame' or 'The government is turning totalitarian and it's the fault of out-of-touch bureaucrats that need to be removed' (the article I linked is very much a member of that species). I've come across very little in the way of sober analysis, almost every piece of journalism I've come across on the topic carries some kind of moral judgement against $group in it. The point I'm making is that moral judgement sells and feels good to dole out to people you don't like, but it also robs us of a little humanity every time we do it. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/14/scientists-admit-totalitarian-use-fear-control-behaviour-covid/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/14/scientists-admit...

clairity 5y ago

it’s worth always keeping in mind that the only dichotomy that matters in political economies is that between the wealthy and powerful and everyone else, not left-right, black-white, east-west, socialist-capitalist, or anything else. it’s been this way for all of human history past and will likely be so for the rest of it too. that’s a sober position to take, not a cynical one, as some might argue. the more dynamic our political and economic engines are, the better for the general welfare (obviously at the extreme this breaks down, but we’re not in danger of that extreme any time soon, if ever). masks provide no added protection in most common situations where they’re used, but provide much political leverage, which is why they’re popular. same with (non-sterilizing) vaccine mandates and other arbitrary public restrictions. these are political wedges, not effective public health measures. if we were worried about public health, vaccination status wouldn’t be considered at all, only infection status. we’d also be policing private behavior (family/social gatherings) much more invasively, rather than public behavior (grocery stores and restaurants).

lb0 5y ago
Very confusing statements, any sources? To start with one, https://twitter.com/maxplanckpress/status/1466687935638654976 https://twitter.com/maxplanckpress/status/146668793563865497...
pfisch 5y ago
"the only dichotomy that matters in political economies is that between the wealthy and powerful and everyone else" I always think of this as putting on different pairs of glasses to see the world through different lenses. That is one lens. left-right is another lens. There is no "the only lens that matters". There are many lenses which have different degrees of predictive power depending on what you are observing. You don't use a microscope to look at the stars.
- clairity 5y ago
  left-right is the worst of political dichotomies. it provides no purpose other than to arbitrarily divide the world into good vs. bad from the perspective of the viewer. that’s meant to solely benefit politicians, not provide any clarity, because it collapses the acceptable political narratives down into a palatably small set from which the politician can form a base. in short, it’s pure bullshit.

Centmo 5y ago

Fix the incentives, fix the world.